The Constitution didn't define marraige as one man and one woman because the Constitution is not a dictionary.
Doesn't change the meaning of the word "marriage," any more than it changes the meaning of the words "bird," "frog," or "chimpanzee."
The Constitution is also silent on the issue of group marriage and interspecies marriage. Should we also accept that as tacit approval?
The Constitution didn't define marraige as one man and one woman because the Constitution is not a dictionary. That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them.